People v. Iannacco

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: KLINGBIEL
• Citation: People v. Iannacco, 142 N.E.2d 8, 11 Ill.2d 55 (Ill. 1957)
• Decision Date: 20 March 1957
• Docket Number: No. 34142,34142
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Carlo IANNACCO, Plaintiff and in Error.

Page 8

142 N.E.2d 8

11 Ill.2d 55

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Carlo IANNACCO, Plaintiff and in Error.

No. 34142.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 20, 1957.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1957.

Abraham Teitelbaum, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and Robert C. Nelson, State's Atty., Waukegan (Fred G. Leach, Decatur, and Kenneth R. Shorts, Waukegan, of counsel), for the People.

KLINGBIEL, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff in error, Carlo Iannacco, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted in the circuit court of Lake County of the crime of burglary upon a trial by the court, a jury trial having been waived, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the Illinois State Penitentiary for a term of not less than two years nor more than seven years. The case is here upon a writ of error sued out by defendant.

The evidence indicates that on April 15, 1955, defendant with three of his companions burglarized a tavern which they had passed while en route to a cottage of defendant's mother located on Fox River. They had started out on a fishing trip. Defendant was about 21 years of age and the youngest in the group was about 16 years of age. The break-in occurred in the early morning hours of that day and the articles stolen consisted of a quantity of whiskey, cigarettes and other items which were taken to his mother's cottage on Fox River and there concealed. The defendant and his companions then returned to the tavern and while in the act of another pilfering they were detected and finally apprehended. There is no dispute as to the burglary of the tavern nor as to the facts and circumstances leading up to and surrounding it.

Upon his trial defendant contended that at the time of the burglary in question he was so intoxicated that he was incapable of forming the specific intent requisite to commit an act or burglary. In this court defendant renews and urges this contention. The defendant was the only witness who testified that he was intoxicated at the time this offense occurred. His wife testified only as to the amount of liquor he consumed at home before he drove away on the fishing trip. Starting in the afternoon of the 14th he testified he had consumed two cans of beer, about one half of a fifth of whiskey and some more whiskey while driving out of Chicago to the place where the tavern was located. By this time it was the early morning hours of the 15th. It was stipulated between the State and defendant that if two certain witnesses were called they would testify that the amounts of alcohol which defendant testified he had consumed during the period of time preceding the entiries to the tavern would have cause intoxication. These witnesses were Dr. Burton J. Winston of North Chicago, an expert as to intoxication, who had appeared as a witness in many court trials, and Lieutenant Joseph Petitclair, the officer in charge of the drunk-o-meter in Lake County.

Against this, the evidence showed that up to the second entry defendant had driven his car from Chicago without incident to the scene of the crime; that he had loaded his car with the merchandise stolen from the tavern on the first entry, had driven it out to his mother's cottage on Fox River where the stolen property had been hidden, had returned to the tavern, participated in the second entry, and, when discovered, fled from the scene of the crime, and, upon his trial, he testified that when apprehended he tried to act as though he was sober. Seven witnesses, six of whom were police...